Aja on 17/9/2007 at 02:45
Kill Bill is not overrated. Rather, it's one of the most visceral and intense films ever created. By the time it was over I think I'd worn the fabric off of the armrests in the theatre chair. Nearly every second is simultaneously compelling and repulsive. Then again, most of Tarantino's films are the same, but never had this aesthetic been so purely realised.
Charlie's Angels, on the other hand, is a 90 minute plastic advertisement with cleavage. I haven't seen DOA.
Scots Taffer on 17/9/2007 at 03:02
I think Tarantino's intention was to create one of the most visceral and intense films ever created, instead what I think came off as a homage-ridden, sometimes cheesy attempt at a movie that was probably better when it was called Payback.
Don't get me wrong, there are moments where it works and when it does, it's sublime - but the problem here is that Tarantino tried to do about nineteen things at once:
He wanted to do a revenge movie.
He wanted to still cram in his stoned teenager dialogue about Superman.
He wanted Uma Thurman to be a badass and to bring a couple of old hands back from the cinematic graveyard to kick some ass too.
He wanted to cram it to the bulging eyeballs (ready to be plucked out) with completely over the top violence.
He wanted to homage four genres at once:
- the revenge ouevre from mainstream flicks like Death Wish to underground pap that no one but him and a few film students have seen
- the japanese samurai movies, complete with solemn stares over the ring of a sword being drawn from a scabbard
- the kung-fu genre, especially aping the master-student, which essentially has NO place in this movie, even though it's fun
- the western, the lone gunman facing off against the squad of outlaws
Oh yeah, let's have some anime in there too, that's cool, right?
Simply due to its design and intentions I don't think it can ever be anything other than a flawed gem. I liked it at the time, it was among my top movies that year, but other than an intense cinematic experience I don't think it leaves any lasting impressions. Though I'll grant that the introduction to The Bride in Vol 1 was perhaps one of the most striking, visceral and emotionally raw sequences I've ever seen, it was the perfect set-up for a revenge movie.
Jackablade on 17/9/2007 at 03:03
This is an interesting topic to appear today because I just got back from watching both Kill Bill 1 and 2 at some art house theater. I can't really compare Kill Bill to Charlie's Angels because I've only seen a spattering of CA, but none of that spatter fell into the good movie category. From what I have seen of Charlie's Angels I think the acting is what sets it apart the most. All three of them seemed so fucking full of themselves, I hate it.
When I first watched Kill Bill on the other hand, I thought it was the best movie ever made. Since then I have calmed down a little, but after watching both films again today I can easily say that Kill Bill (I count them as one movie) is in my list of top five movies. There is just so much masterful film making in the movie. The story is compelling and allows for some truly emotional scenes (the anime part, finding out that Bill is a great guy, or when Uma is crying after killing him). The acting is wonderful, except Vivica A. Fox, but her part is very small. Some wince at Tarantino's patented dialogue, but I think Kill Bill has some of his best. The movies have emotion, action, humour, but not only that everything in them is visually and aurally exhilarating. The interplay between music and action is some of the best I've seen, and the set pieces are fantastic. I mean, to each his own, but I wouldn't even consider Charlie's Angels comparable to Kill Bill.
Also, maybe if you weren't so obsessed with movies (you've said as much on these forums) you wouldn't get those feelings Scots. I noticed it I suppose, but hardly in the immersion killing way you describe it. I'm not trying to sound harsh. I just don't really feel what you feel.
Maybe I'm a bit too gushing for KB, but I just got back from seeing a couple movies I love, you can understand, right?
Scots Taffer on 17/9/2007 at 03:10
Oh hell yeah, I get it. As I say, I found Kill Bill to be a very pleasurable cinematic experience but an enduring one?
Also, to the people answering the OP's question, these movies aren't even in the same filmic league, it's Scotland and Brazil playing football, do yo know what I mean? One is a popcorn action comedy made with a bunch of nearly washed up 90s stars and the other is a loving homage made by a director who has produced some stellar movies... and er, DOA, whatever.
To be honest, I found Kill Bill's mishmash of styles forgivable but Tarantino not being able to reel in his excesses where they were so obviously out of place (the Superman dialogue, oh jesus) and some of the homages were a little off-kilter, I thought, in terms of the dramatic progression of the story that is just got in the way. The overt winking at those in the audience who appreciated his little touches here and there was annoying, but not distractingly so.
Also, I'd like to say I was once obsessed with movies, these days it only borders on a slight mania. I do love discussing them though. :)
Aja on 17/9/2007 at 04:25
I liked the Superman dialogue - it wasn't until Death Proof that Tarantino really went overboard with the oh-christ-we-are-so-fucking-clever-at-conversation scenes.
But I agree with you (Scots) in that the Kill Bills don't exactly have the lasting power of Tarantino's best work. I've seen the first one several times and the second twice, and I have no real urge to see them again. This may be more due to the fact that I don't necessarily enjoy being visually and aurally assaulted for three hours, than to any thematic or pacing issues. My original comment holds - the film is often too intense to enjoy.
This thread, however, is about comparing Kill Bill to Charlie's Angels. One is a near-art film and the other is a mega-corporate summer blockbuster.
ON A SIDE NOTE - for a truly visceral and intense film I recommend David Lynch's latest, Inland Empire. It's three hours long and absolutely terrifying. I've seen no mention of it on the forums as of yet, but of anything released lately, this deserves mention - if you have the attention span and the willingness to surrender all logic and comprehension to Mr Lynch, you are in for one frightening experience.
Scots Taffer on 17/9/2007 at 04:42
Yeah, the new Cronenberg looks fantastic, I was marginally disappointed with A History of Violence so I hope this one hits the mark.
As for Lynch, I'm always game, although I hope this one is more Lost Highway than Mulholland Drive. (I preferred the pre-edit "it's three hours and long", heh).
SubJeff on 17/9/2007 at 04:50
Lost Highway is always a delight to watch, and much as I love it - wtf? I've never got a damn thing that is going on in that film. At least Mulholland makes perfect (almost) sense.
A History of Violence, I felt, was a big departure. Understated but I enjoyed all the same. Nothing matches Videodrome though. If anyone hasn't seen it I'm telling you - get it out today.
Aja on 17/9/2007 at 04:58
Quote:
I preferred the pre-edit "it's three hours and long"
You are paying attention now, aren't you! ;)
Upon first viewing, I thought Mulholland Drive was the best film I'd ever seen - I watched it several more times that week and spent a few hours browsing the fan sites. My enthusiasm has dwindled a bit since, but I still rate it among my very favourites. The only other Lynch film I've seen is Eraserhead, but if I had to compare (and I
love to compare), I'd say Inland Empire is more Eraserhead than Mulholland Drive, in the sense that Eraserhead is art-house embodiment of anxiety, whereas Mulholland Drive almost nearly resembles a Hollywood movie, or, more accurately, a television series (I've never seen Twin Peaks but I suspect it's somewhat similar?)
Inland Empire is what happens when David Lynch is allowed to make a movie with absolutely no restrictions. It is horrifically, gloriously incomprehensible.
Muzman on 17/9/2007 at 05:09
Kill Bill is tedius self indulgent trash which I'm sure would be a revelation to anyone who'd never seen anything made before 1986. It does however have a lot more personality than the overlong fashionshoot/commercials that are the other two. 6/10 (5 if you're unfortunate enough to watch both parts back to back)
(just call me the echo boy)
